Institutional code and human behavior (2)

So In part 1 we demonstrated at least some primitive roles that could be defined as well as mechanisms for how membership within those roles might be identified.  There is obviously a lot more to explore there, but for now we can turn our attention to another significant part of the code, which is the definition of processes.

What exactly is a process?  It’s ultimately a set of behaviors that create a transformation from a starting point to an ending point.  Swimming is not fully defined by the specific strokes or movements made, but by the result.  If you’re in the water, and you’re moving through the force of your own body, you’re swimming, unless someone has a more specific definition, in which case they’ve added constraints to the process for determining membership of that set. Each action can be broken down into arbitrary sub-actions.  These sub-actions are only relevant to the definition of the greater goal if they’re explicitly defined and promoted or inhibited.  When you’re walking, it really doesn’t matter how exactly your legs move step by step… whether you have some mechanical assistance, etc.  If you’re taking steps, you’re walking.

Clearly stories or re-enactments can convey some of this code—that is, definitions of processes.  We can see in myths the ability to convey what a member of a certain role should or should not do.  By using the ability of stories to neurally simulate an experience, a story or re-enactment can constrain a persons behavior in a similar way, though less intensely, to actually experiencing the thing described.  By repeating this over and over,  this constraint can be strengthened.  Without language, these stories could not be told orally yet, but a re-enactment could that the place of language in neurally simulating a narrative, and could be more effective–especially paired with masks or other iconic symbols, as well as music.  But this presupposes the existence of music, iconic symbols, and re-enactments, of which there is no evidence earlier than the evidence we have of language.

A dance could also be used to create neural constraints, as the repetitive motion would cause certain actions to be much more likely to follow others.  This could be used to convey and propagate skills like fighting, making important items, etc.  In the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind, Jaynes suggests that the origin of language could have been a person repeating a word they’re hearing in their head while doing a repetitive task such as making a tool.  This is certainly a possibility.  It’s also possible that this repetition was done to a certain rhythm in a group, with multiple people repeating their words at different rates and different pitches.  In other words, it could have been music and communal work which drove the creation of processes, which are what define the relations between roles.

A code would have defined what resources should go to members of these roles under what conditions.  Defining resources as belonging to a person rightfully by a code is primordial property rights, however this inherently defines public property as well.  The resources which are bestowed on a person due to their role are collective resources first, and it is through this that public enforcement of their rightful owner is compelled.

Such rights are relationships between roles (e.g. owner / non-owner, buyer/seller, etc.).  These relationships are defined by processes, and these processes must result in the constraint of behavior of participants.  Some of the processes they are composed of consist of: a process for identifying an owner.  A process for transferring ownership.  A process for enforcing ownership / dissuading theft etc.  These processes may roughly consist of those which identify, or sensory processes, and those which enact some change of state, or motor.

But how could these ways of creating neural constraints combine to define mechanisms for modifying the code itself?   This would include the addition of new roles, the definition of new procedures, the prohibition of certain procedures, the constraint of existing procedures in the case of a participant being a member of a certain role.

A mechanism for enforcement / incentivizing  is shame.  Religion uses this to great effect and is certainly a candidate for a primordial institution. It appears that religion may predate writing.  Dance and reenactment appear in religious rituals through many societies. These could convey shame in order to suppress behaviors as a form of neural constraint. Narrative reenactment allows the definition of new roles, and the association of strong emotions like shame, humor, or lust with certain processes, providing neural constraints.  This is one possible mechanism for defining and transferring institutional code in a society without language.  A few of the many things that merit further discussion are (1) A thorough description of how (and whether) these processes could have bootstrapped language (2) an enumeration of more characteristic roles and processes, as well as evidence that they were conveying institutional “code” (3) an illustration of how information flows through the system described (4) Identifying the mechanism for these “sensor” and “motor” processes and showing the parallel to living organisms.  (5) Identifying fundamental elements which recombine to form building blocks of narrative